Low Cost/ High Res, vs. High Cost / Low Res?

I was looking at some camera bodies online, and noticed that there were some "professional" cameras that cost more than other models of the same brand, but had lower resolution. (e.g. Nikon D4 at 16mp vs D800 at 36mp)

I'm sure there is some kind of reason for the cost difference, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are the Professional cameras with lower megapixels somehow still capable of taking better shots?
If so, what do they do differently?
If not, why do they cost more?

The D800 is going to be great for landscapes and portraits, not so great with sports or fast moving action shots.  Now the D4 is going to be good for just about anything you can imagine.  The trade off is you don't get the high MP as you get with the D800.  I was surprised when the D4 came out with only 16MP.


What will you be using the camera for?

I have wondered the same thing.  Just to show that MP isn't the big fish in pond. 

Mostly Landscape, macro, and maybe some portrait.

phtstudent wrote: Mostly Landscape, macro, and maybe some portrait.

Save your money and go with the D800.   What camera body do you have currently?

ThatNikonGuy wrote:

phtstudent wrote: Mostly Landscape, macro, and maybe some portrait.

Save your money and go with the D800.   What camera body do you have currently?

I'm currently using a Canon 60D.

Are you looking to jump brands?  If so have you looked the mirrorless Sony a7R?  That has the 36mp sensor that the D800 has, with out the bulky body size.  

phtstudent wrote:

ThatNikonGuy wrote:

phtstudent wrote: Mostly Landscape, macro, and maybe some portrait.

Save your money and go with the D800.   What camera body do you have currently?

I'm currently using a Canon 60D.

I have a friend who shoots with that same camera.  How do you like it?

Don't fall for the resolution hype. Example, I use a D800 and the venerable D700. The only thing the D800 does exponentially better than the D700 is produce an image that can be printed very large. The 700 has a faster burst rate, sharper shooting hand held (walk around), and produces better handheld macro.  Yes, I use my D800 mostly on a tripod for landscape, and its great for wildlife as it survives a pretty big crop, but the D700 holds its own at seven (?) years old and a "mere" 12 MP! 

Yep the higher the resolution, the harder the task master. Any flaws in your technique will show up in your images more. I have heard a few complain about their new cameras not producing good images when stepping up to a newer camera, and it is user error pretty much most of the time. I know my D50 was more forgiving than my D300 is.

ThatNikonGuy wrote:

phtstudent wrote:

ThatNikonGuy wrote:

phtstudent wrote: Mostly Landscape, macro, and maybe some portrait.

Save your money and go with the D800.   What camera body do you have currently?

I'm currently using a Canon 60D.

I have a friend who shoots with that same camera.  How do you like it?

After upgrading from the XSi, I was very impressed. The only reason I'm thinking of switching is that I want to get as close as I can get to medium format resolution.

effron wrote: Don't fall for the resolution hype. Example, I use a D800 and the venerable D700. The only thing the D800 does exponentially better than the D700 is produce an image that can be printed very large. The 700 has a faster burst rate, sharper shooting hand held (walk around), and produces better handheld macro.  Yes, I use my D800 mostly on a tripod for landscape, and its great for wildlife as it survives a pretty big crop, but the D700 holds its own at seven (?) years old and a "mere" 12 MP! 

I can see your point, but I almost always use a tripod anyway.
I'm really looking to get the largest, most prestine image I can for the money.

phtstudent wrote:

effron wrote: Don't fall for the resolution hype. Example, I use a D800 and the venerable D700. The only thing the D800 does exponentially better than the D700 is produce an image that can be printed very large. The 700 has a faster burst rate, sharper shooting hand held (walk around), and produces better handheld macro.  Yes, I use my D800 mostly on a tripod for landscape, and its great for wildlife as it survives a pretty big crop, but the D700 holds its own at seven (?) years old and a "mere" 12 MP! 

I can see your point, but I almost always use a tripod anyway.
I'm really looking to get the largest, most prestine image I can for the money.

Are you sticking with Canon or going the Nikon route? 

Colorado Mike wrote:

phtstudent wrote:

effron wrote: Don't fall for the resolution hype. Example, I use a D800 and the venerable D700. The only thing the D800 does exponentially better than the D700 is produce an image that can be printed very large. The 700 has a faster burst rate, sharper shooting hand held (walk around), and produces better handheld macro.  Yes, I use my D800 mostly on a tripod for landscape, and its great for wildlife as it survives a pretty big crop, but the D700 holds its own at seven (?) years old and a "mere" 12 MP! 

I can see your point, but I almost always use a tripod anyway.
I'm really looking to get the largest, most prestine image I can for the money.

Are you sticking with Canon or going the Nikon route? 

I haven't decided. At this point, I'll go with whichever will give me the largest, highest resolution image for the money.
I was looking at the Canon 1Ds mkIII, but after comparing specs, I'm leaning pretty heavily toward the D800.

All said and done, I don't have enough money invested in Canon to be too worried about brand loyalty. The only lens I have is the EF-S 18-200mm IS, which I love by the way; but it has so many elements that for me to get the most out of an upgraded body, I'd have to buy an L series lens. That being said, if I'm going to buy a new body and lens in either direction, it would be hard for me to go with a Canon that has 21mp and buy an L lens, rather than get a Nikon that's 36mp with a NIKKOR at roughly the same cost.

The D800 would be about $2000, plus about another $2000 for a Lens, and about $500 for a Speedlite. That's more than I've ever even considered spending on a camera, but compared to a Hasselblad H4D-40, the resolution is about the same at less than half the cost.

And because of crop factor difference, I coul make the D800 with NIKKOR 24-300mm my main camera, and use the 60D with the 18-200mm as a back up prety effectively.

D800 will be a good camera for what you are looking to do